NY State Senator James “For Sale To The Highest Bidder” Alesi has already begun to reap the rewards for going back on his word to his constituents to support traditional marriage.

Today’s Democrat & Chronicle is reporting that Alesi and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg held a press conference Wednesday morning after a private meeting at Gracie Mansion.

According to the story,

“James Alesi is one of those people that I think has shown courageous leadership on marriage equality, and I invited him here today to say thank you,” Bloomberg told reporters.

“I think it’s fair to say that his decision to become the first Republican to publicly announce his support for marriage equality was the tipping point in the debate. He paved the way for others to follow and for one of the most important pieces of legislation in New York’s history to be passed.”

Bloomberg has been a major campaign contributor to Senate Republicans over the years, and his support would be helpful to Alesi, who is expected to face a strong challenge when he seeks re-election next year.

“I will support those who are doing the right thing for America and for the world, and particularly for New York state and New York City. And I’ve done that before,” Bloomberg said.

It will be interesting to see if the big-money backers of the homosexual agenda can do enough to help Alesi save his political hide.  The early indications aren’t very encouraging: Almost all the comments on the story are running strongly against Alesi.

One of our readers today lamented the way homosexual advocates frequently present SSM as a civil right …

It makes me absolutely ill to hear SSM being equated/part of/a continuation of the Civil Rights movement. But that is the result of our oversexualized culture – having sex with something/someone you love is your civil right?

Readers, especially Irondequoit Mom, might be interested to know that George Weigel very ably dismantled that contention yesterday …

New York State notwithstanding, the argument over marriage will and must continue, because it touches first principles of democratic governance — and because resistance to the agenda of the gay-marriage lobby is a necessary act of resistance against the dictatorship of relativism, in which coercive state power is used to impose on all of society a relativistic ethic of personal willfulness. In conducting that argument in the months and years ahead, it would be helpful if the proponents of marriage rightly understood would challenge the usurpation by the proponents of gay marriage of the civil-rights trump card.

That usurpation is at the heart of the gay lobby’s emotional, cultural, and political success — the moral mantle of those Freedom Riders whose golden anniversary we mark this year has, so to speak, been successfully claimed by the Stonewall Democratic Club and its epigones. And because the classic civil-rights movement and its righteous demand for equality before the law remains one of the few agreed-upon moral touchstones in 21st-century American culture (another being the Holocaust as an icon of evil), to seize that mantle and wear it is to have won a large part of the battle — as one sees when trying to discuss these questions with otherwise sensible young people.

But the analogy simply doesn’t work. Legally enforced segregation involved the same kind of coercive state power that the proponents of gay marriage now wish to deploy on behalf of their cause. Something natural and obvious — “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” — was being denied by the state in its efforts to maintain segregated public facilities and to deny full citizenship rights to African Americans. Once the American people came to see that these arrangements, however hallowed by custom (and prejudice), were, in fact, unnatural and not obvious, the law was changed.

What the gay lobby proposes in the matter of marriage is precisely the opposite of this. Marriage, as both religious and secular thinkers have acknowledged for millennia, is a social institution that is older than the state and that precedes the state. The task of a just state is to recognize and support this older, prior social institution; it is not to attempt its redefinition. To do the latter involves indulging the totalitarian temptation that lurks within all modern states: the temptation to remanufacture reality. The American civil-rights movement was a call to recognize moral reality; the call for gay marriage is a call to reinvent reality to fit an agenda of personal willfulness. The gay-marriage movement is thus not the heir of the civil-rights movement; it is the heir of Bull Connor and others who tried to impose their false idea of moral reality on others by coercive state power.

More here.

Immediately after Govenor Cuomo signed New York’s same-sex ‘marriage’ bill into law under cover of darkness last Friday night, Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio issued a statement blasting New York politicians.  His Excellency wrote, in part (my emphasis),

At a time when so many New Yorkers are struggling to stay in their homes and find jobs, we should be working together to solve these problems. However, the politicians have curried favor with wealthy donors who are proponents of a divisive agenda in order to advance their own careers and futures.

It looks like Bishop DiMarzio knew whereof he wrote.  From Saturday’s New York Times …

In the 35th-floor conference room of a Manhattan high-rise, two of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s most trusted advisers held a secret meeting a few weeks ago with a group of super-rich Republican donors.

Over tuna and turkey sandwiches, the advisers explained that New York’s Democratic governor was determined to legalize same-sex marriage and would deliver every possible Senate vote from his own party.

Would the donors win over the deciding Senate Republicans? It sounded improbable: top Republican moneymen helping a Democratic rival with one of his biggest legislative goals.

But the donors in the room — the billionaire Paul Singer, whose son is gay, joined by the hedge fund managers Cliff Asness and Daniel Loeb — had the influence and the money to insulate nervous senators from conservative backlash if they supported the marriage measure. And they were inclined to see the issue as one of personal freedom, consistent with their more libertarian views.

Within days, the wealthy Republicans sent back word: They were on board. Each of them cut six-figure checks to the lobbying campaign that eventually totaled more than $1 million.

Steve Cohen, the No. 2 in Mr. Cuomo’s office and a participant in the meeting, began to see a path to victory, telling a colleague, “This might actually happen.”

There is a lot more of this sorry story here.

Seeing as how just this Friday a monumental social engineering piece of legislation was passed, I’d be curious to know what your priests and parishes have to say about it. Did your priest (or lay-person) mention it in his homily (or liturgical abuse speech)? Was there any other mention of it elsewhere in the parish? It’s high time we start outing poor leadership and calling them to task. If one word is mentioned that sounds like support for this disgusting legislation, it should be documented and reported. How bout starting here and letting us know what you heard from the pulpit?

The recent legislation regarding same-sex marriage brings about many questions. The Church, and we as Catholics, are going to have to prepare for certain situations. One such situation that will probably come up right away for many of us is the engagement of our homosexual friends, family, and colleagues. I’m trying to figure out what the best way to respond would be.

Scenario: Homosexual friend enthusiastically says, “I just got engaged!” amongst a group of people at today’s bbq. Everyone pawns over them, “congratulations, I’m so happy for you”. What do you do? Frowny face? Silence? An insincere “congrats”? Smile and exit the discussion somehow? I’m seriously curious how best to handle this. So if anyone out there has some ideas, please share them.

NOTE: Pro-SSM supporters – this is not the thread to debate SSM. This is a thread to discuss amongst those who are in opposition to SSM how to handle it in social situations. If you try to hijack this discussion, I will delete your comments.

UPDATE: After a lengthy discussion (thanks to everyone for participating), I thought I’d wrap up some of the general thoughts here. The possible reactions I posted originally were just to get the ideas flowing and not what I would necessarily condone. I’d concur with those who say that the most important thing to do is to make sure you avoid giving the impression that you condone SSM or the homosexual agenda. Saying “congratulation” or “I’m happy for you” are out of the question. Given differing personalities and situations, I believe there are many different acceptable responses, but any form of acceptance should be avoided. My personal favorites are Hopefull’s idea of knocking over a glass of wine and Sassy’s idea to ask if they’re considering NFP